“If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).
1 Like
I was part of another church group previously who also believed that “outside OUR church, no salvation”.
Not an uncommon occurence in the religious landscape. I do not think that it holds biblically however. I think first of all about when Jesus says, “whoever is not against us is for us”, addressing the situation of a man driving out a demon in Jesus own name. I think that verse lends credit to the idea, that Jesus is the God of whosoever chooses him, rather than being church-specific. Considering the context of Luke 9:46-50 which is about how to be the greatest in Jesus kingdom, I find this interpretation reliable. You cannot even strive to be the greatest in the catholic church, because that is not the only group of people belonging to Jesus.
Is there a necessity of believing the Trinity for salvation?
Amen! And I agree. As @nuncincipio pointed out in Second John that "anyone who is so progressive as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine (1 Jn 2:22–23; 4:2; 5:5–6), do not receive him in your house (in our Church, domestic and universal) or even greet him (I presume with the brotherly kiss).
There is nothing you can think of in Vatican I that might have changes from prior to Vatican I?
The Catholic Church still believes this today. When someone is Baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they become a member of Christ’s body, the church.
Are there early documents that say that one must be Baptized by a Bishop or a Priest? I’m genuinely asking. Last Lent I started reading the Early Church Councils and I cannot recall (I’ll have to check my notes).
Salvific grace flows from Christ’s side and through the Apostolic Church that Christ founded. So, in a sense, there is no Salvation outside the One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic Church.
And though one can cut themselves off from the ongoing Life that Christ offers us in these gifts which He instituted, it does not mean that they have rejected Christ outright. And as we see while Christ is on the Cross, a man who comes to believe in Him, but has not been Baptized, is saved. Does Vatican I teach that one can be saved not having been Baptized if one has the desire to be with Christ, but is unable to be Baptized? I’m asking out of ignorance.
I have not read either of these two documents. I guess I have homework to do : ) I cannot just take your word that these documents are saying what you claim they do.
Now can you give me an example of how Vatican I has changed from prior to Vatican I?
Christ gave the Apostles and their successors the authority to loose and to bind, but also the responsibility to protect and to defend the Apostolic teachings passed onto them. One should not be at the expense of the other. Do you believe this to be true?
Strictly speaking, Yes. However, when the thief on the Cross who came to believe that Jesus is God, might not have fully understood the Holy Trinity. And Sacred Scripture does not say if Jesus gave the man Catechesis while they were grasping for another breath.
Jesus established norms, but Jesus can save whomever He wants. We can bicker about who is saved and who is not saved, but truly none of us really knows. What we do know is that our Lord gave the faithful instructions on how to grow in Him. Where some view these gifts as works of men, we see as Christ working in us. And just as we know that faith without works is dead, so too is work without faith.
It is not only baptism but baptism+faith that makes someone a member of the Church, as explained in Pius XII’s Mystici Coporis, #22 and #23. And made clear in Florence Sess. 11 as dogma. It is called “true and necessary” which clearly shows it is extraordinarily dogmatic (infallible).
The baptism of the Spirit was instituted in Matthew 28:19 when He said “go therefore and baptize…etc.”. This was when he was about to ascend into heaven. After this, baptism became absolutely necessary for salvation. And at that time in the cross, positive assent and faith in the Trinity was not yet absolutely necessary since He didn’t yet institute baptism of the Spirit.
I believe Baptism is true and necessary. Baptism is regenerative (truly).
Jesus makes it clear in John 3:5 that Baptism is necessary, “Truly, truly, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”
Now, we do not know if the thief on the cross was previously Baptized, but I would bet that he wasn’t (speculation on my part). I do not know if Vatican I taught a Baptism of desire, but it makes logical sense to me that Christ would not deny anyone who comes to him in their dying hour, even if unable to be formally Baptized.
Now this does not mean that what some Protestants have done by making the exception the norm is justified. It isn’t. It is in grave error that they do this.
Again, baptism was not inspired until right before the ascension. Some 42 days after the crucifixion. The thief did not need to be baptized at that time because baptismal regeneration was not yet made necessary
I see your point and I think it is a valid one. Likewise, the “Last Supper” was not the first Eucharist then, but rather a lead-up to the fulfillment of the Passover. Is this your understanding as well?
No, the last supper was the institution of the sacrament of communion even though it was before the crucifixion
This is confusing. If this is the case, then your argument for Baptism no longer makes sense to me.
You are telling me that Baptisms prior to Christ’s Passion were not regenerative, but the Last Supper was transubstantiated. Can you expand on this?
It would seem to me that either both were instituted prior to Christ’s death or neither were valid prior to our Lord’s death and Resurrection, since Christ had not yet fulfilled the signs of the old Covenant.
Baptisms prior to the institution were baptism of penance, also called the “baptism of John”. This is not baptismal regeneration of the Spirit. These are merely signs of the future baptism of the Spirit. The fulfillment of the New Testament is in the Resurrection.
So the NT was not complete until the resurrection. Prior to that, it was still being added to. And then prior to the Death it was still Old Testament. So the apostles received baptism and confirmation at the same time, as showed above in Acts of the Apostles chapter 1. You can read Matthew 3 to see how the baptism of John is different than that of the Spirit.
Modernism is conforming to the disgustingness and sins of the modern world.
Fair enough, but how then do you explain Christ giving His body at the Last Supper, when He had not yet given it? I know what I want to say, but I’d like you to explain it to me. And perhaps @DLW would also like to expand on any of the points made in this thread. Thanks : )
Regarding the original post, the quotation from Vatican II does not deny that you can separate yourself from the Body of Christ. It only affirms that Baptism makes you a member of the Body of Christ.
Trying to make things as they were before A.D. 800 is not being traditional. That’s being antiquarian. Pope Pius XII had a few things to say about antiquarianism (see Mediator Dei 63-64)
This is simply wrong. Vatican II does not teach conciliarism. (N.B. I don’t think Boniface VIII’s “two heads” comments was about the college of bishops. But, as we shall see, that is beside the point.)
Reading paragraph 22 of Lumen Gentium you actually discover that:
- The college of bishops has no authority apart from the Roman Pontiff
- The pope has primacy over all the pastors of the Church who are subject to him
- The college of bishops only exercises authority with the consent of the Roman Pontiff
- For a council of bishops to be ecumenical it must be confirmed (or at least accepted) by the successor of Peter
1 Like
(1) I never said that they can’t be separated. I said the doctrine that one who is made a member via baptism alone is heretical.
(2) Explain how the bishops are not made a head if they are separate from the Roman pontiff. They are really distinct entities in this case. So I guess it would be like 1 1/2 head.
What does the “subject” there imply? That you must be a member of the catholic church, or that you must obey his teachings, or what?
The Roman Pontiff exercises his jurisdiction only over those members of the church. Thus is means you must be a member of the church to be “subject” to him.
“Conforming to the disgustingness and sins of the modern world.” Well, I guess that is your working definition.
Is belief in the Trinity required for salvation? Last night I had dinner with the Arizona Bible Guy (he used to be on TV under that title). Off the top of his head, he said, he could not think of any biblically required beliefs for salvation except faith in Jesus. If you know Jesus, he said, you will know the Father and know about the Holy Spirit. And I mentioned the good thief, somebody we know is in heaven. Someone mentioned him above too. Only his faith in Jesus is mentioned in the Gospel.